ImmiGREAT!

Border wall boondoggle: even dumber than I thought!

So a gaggle of right-wing racists and faux libertarians want to build a wall on the border. They are going to “secure” the borders. Nice.

So what does securing the borders mean? Well, one taste of it is that the historic right of Americans to cross into Canada or Mexico without a passport is gone. To travel you have to a government document giving you permission to do so. You can see why I think the “libertarians” who support this measure are not really libertarians at all.

And they want to build a big wall on the Mexican border. Also nice. Real nice. (You do know I’m being sarcastic.)

Since the United States was founded (and before) the borders with Canada and Mexico were never “secure”. Never. So the communities developed often without regard of that imaginary line in the dirt.

Now the authoritarians want “secure borders” and that means problems. It doesn’t mean problems for would-be terrorists. After all the 9/11 criminals didn’t cross the border illegally. They came in with government permission. They had passports and the US government said to them: “Welcome to America. Want some flying lessons?”

No one came in through Canada or Mexico. They didn’t cross the borders but flew in and handed over their permission slips to the hall monitors at the airports. They were roaming around killing people because they passed government security and had state permission to be in the US. You would think the government would look at how they approve would-be terrorists to enter the US. Instead Americans are being forced to get passports to spend a few hours shopping in Mexico.

But with hundreds of years of open borders the problems of imposing a Berlin Wall of security around the country are immense and very costly. Now think of this Border Wall for a second. The estimated cost is $2.2 billion. Like most government boondoggles that is the estimated cost. The real cost no doubt will be significantly higher.

A 14-mile section of wall in the San Diego area has been in the works since 1996. That project spent $39 million to date and the government plans another $35 million for it. By my calculation that is about $5,286,000 per mile. This is in an area much more easily accessible than where the American “Berlin Wall” is being installed. Even if this new wall costs the same as the one in San Diego the final price will be closer to $4 billion. And the New York Times says the cost could reach $49 billion. I suspect the feds will still be building when I go to my grave and that ultimately it will be scrapped unfinished. It will only stand as a monument to the stupidity and waste of government and to the bigotry of the xenophobic Right.

Now that cost is for the wall itself. What isn’t counted is that the US government is going to purchase or confiscate by eminent domain miles of privately owned land abutting the border. Again the faux libertarians supporting the wall will tell you that they oppose eminent domain. Yet only a total moron would have to say this wall can be built without the use of eminent domain. No doubt some of these “new” libertarians will find a way to justify eminent domain the way they have justified their other non-libertarian policies.

How will the wall and the confiscated land be paid for? Taxes, of course. Yet one conservative Republican is telling everyone he has never voted for a tax increase. But he has voted to spend billions of dollars walling in America. In fact he has made the border hysteria a major focus of his campaign. He imposed billions of dollars in costs on the American people and wants to pretend it was done tax free. Sure I believe that.

The Tohono O’odham Indians are not happy with that border wall. And they are supposed to be somewhat sovereign on their own land. But they say the wall will prevent them from crossing onto their land in Mexico and prevent wildlife from crossing. But this tribe may have it easy compared to other Americans.

University of Texas vice president Antonio Zavaleta says the border fence is going to cause a problem for students. “Part of our university would be on the Mexican side of the fence.” He wants to know if students are going to need a passport to travel between classrooms. The New York Times reports:

In Brownsville, Dr. Zavaleta said, that path would cut off not only the International Technology, Education and Commerce campus of the University of Texas and Texas Southmost College, which is in a former shopping center about a mile from the main campus, but also its golf course and a national historic site, Fort Brown, where an upright cannon marks an opening skirmish of the Mexican War.

According to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram “officials with the Department of Homeland Security mentioned its condemnation authority ‘within the first 15 words’ spoken to landowners” in the Rio Grande Valley where this Orwellian agency is “eyeing numerous private tracts for the wall.” Rep. Henry Cuellar says the landowners were told: “Keep in mind we can take away your property through eminent domain.”

Of course the border nazis insist they want to work with the landowners and that the landowners are “partners” with them. (Sort of the way a woman is a partner to a rapist.) Border Patrol spokesman Xavier Rios says: “The amount of property that would be used for this is only the property that has been identified as essential for completion of the project.” Now doesn’t that clear it up? In other words they will only take as much land as they think they need. Doesn’t everyone feel better now?

The Star-Telegram reports that in Rio Grande Valley section a 90 mile long wall is planned “most of it on private land and that the landowners “have expressed fears that a wall will disrupt cattle and ranching operations, block access to the Rio Grande and — unless they agree to the government’s financial terms — spur nasty court battles over the condemnation of private property.”

Noel Benavides, had a border patrol official show up at his ranch and show him a map indicating the wall would come right through his property. But Benavides was told he couldn’t have a copy of it. Benavides says: “What really got me upset was the individual mentioned eminent domain. We can’t stop Homeland Security. It is the law right now that we have to have a fence in this area. But to come in and say we will take it anyway we can, we can exercise eminent domain, that really got me upset and it still does.”

The land was in Benavides’ wife’s family since 1763 and includes large sections of untouched wilderness. And the Rio Grande was a river his family as uniting two countries, not dividing them. As a boy he swam in the river. Now he wonders if he will even be able to use the water rights he has to the river. “How are we going to be able to pump water if a fence separates us from the river? What is going to happen to all those animals that drink water from the river?” Benavides wonders which Mexican president is going to say: “Mr. President, tear down this wall… like Reagan said.”

Hey boys and girls! Aren’t you glad that those private property loving, small government conservatives (Ron Paul included) pushed through this idea?

It also appears that entire sections of Laredo, Texas are built up right to the border with Neuvo Laredo in Mexico. That would means wide sections of private property, people’s homes and businesses, will have to be confiscated to build the wall. We now have conservatives, who whined about the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision on eminent domain, proposing a wall that is only going to be built through the confiscation of thousands and thousands of pieces of private property. But don’t expect them to mention that.
So far there are no plans to wall in the Canadian border. But Americans are going to need passports to cross into Canada shortly. But how, for instance, will that work in the town of Derby Line, Vermont? Derby Line and Stanstead, Canada share common streets.

Step through the front door of the Haskell Library and you’re in the United States.Walk across the carpeted floor to the circulation desk and you’re in Canada. But if you sit down on the couch, you’re back in the U.S.

The two towns, in different countries, share a common water system, sewer system and emergency crews in both towns help one another. Will people need passports to go to the local library?

The residents of Canusa Avenue in Beebe Plain, Vermont have a bigger problem. This new found desire to “secure the borders” is one that troubles them. The street is named as it is as because it combines Canada and the USA (CanUSA). The residents on the south side of the street live in the US while those on north side live in Canada. Under the new Bush rules residents will need a passport to cross the street. As one lifelong resident of the street put it, referring to the new regulations: “This is quite a rats’ nest, if you think about.”

Ah, but in DC they never think about it and the Decider has decided and logic and reason never plays a role in his decisions. And what would Republicans campaign on if they didn’t have “illegals” around to scare their voters. They’ve already pretty much played their hatred of gays to death. It’s really time to move to on to another group of people to attack and why not the Mexicans?

Photos: 1) The wall, or one version of it. 2). Haskell Library, part in Canada, part in the US. 3) Canusa Ave: north side is Canada, south side is US. Passports will be need to borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor?

“Recent exchanges here in the virtual pages of The Libertarian Enterprise have made it necessary for me to engage, once again, on a topic that I would really rather let others handle whenever possible. There’s nothing I hate like repeating myself, so pay attention this time.

“The topic is “illegal” immigration. I dislike dealing with it primarily because the very necessity to do so challenges my otherwise optimistic view of my fellow human beings. The rational position on this issue should be obvious-open and shut-to anyone calling him- or herself a libertarian, and the fact that it isn’t depresses me”.

Build the wall! Secure the border! No Amnesty! This is a soveriegn country with laws for legal immigratiion. In fact, this country is the most liberal in the world for Legal Immigration. Enforce the 1986 Immigration law. Penalize sanctuary cities and “Benedict Arnold” businesses. Illegals will go back home!

How about all the descendents of European “illegals” (sic, sick, six – what an offensive term for human beings!) go back “home”?

My home is wherever I lay my head, I am not a cell of a collectivist national organism. How about you, comrade?

*As Starchild brought up yesterday on California LP yahoo group, the right of emigration is as much a part of migration as the right of immigration; you can not have one without the other. And without the right to leave, a nation is essentially one big prison.

Our country’s immigration policy is clearly racist in their “limits” on immigration and political when it comes to allowing people to stay. IF someone tries to escape on of our client autocracies they get sent back. If they escape – even as a criminal – from one of our current “axis of evil” countries they are welcome with open arms. Castro exploited this hypocrisy in the 80s when he released dangerous criminals who Reagan welcomed with open arms.

It’s ironic that after blowing up Iraq, we don’t welcome those who want to leave. Sweden takes in more displaced Iraqis than we do. But then again far fewer Iraqis want to blow Sweden up than want to blow us up.

The last guy in the immi-great video was most accurate. Immigrants come here not only to fill existing jobs, but to CREATE new ones. First, they do so simply by existing — their residency creates new demand in and of itself. But more than that, immigrants are statistically more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans.

The first guy in the video was off the mark. He concedes that illegal immigrants are a drain on the economy, but offers that they would be a plus if they were legalized and made to pay taxes. This is doubly false. First, immigrants are a net positive for the economy, just as (virtually) every academic study shows — and this includes externality costs associated with schooling, emergency rooms, etc. Secondly, immigrants — even illegal ones! — DO pay taxes. They know the IRS is a lot deadlier than the INS, and they don’t want to piss off the tax man. There is more than FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS worth of FICA taxes that have been collected from people with phony Social Security Numbers.

There is no economic argument to be made against immigration. Period. As is, immigration is a net positive. Scaling back welfare benefits, etc., would only make it more so. But protectionism — “they’re taking our jobs!” — is a false, mercantilist, and intellectually immature way of viewing wealth creation.

The “cultural” argument against immigration is racist. Period. Entirely un-American and deserved of no response other than dismissal.

The security argument is the only legitimate one. But the best way to secure the border is to let peaceful capitalists into the country, thereby making it easier to find the few who subvert the legal mechanisms for entering the country.

Personally, I find the very term “illegal alien” as offensive as “illegitimate baby.” Imagine the audacity of those people, getting born on the wrong side of an imaginary line!

But the wall might have some good consequenses. It’ll be a boost for the Mexican ladder industry. Personally, I prefer troops – great new black-market job opportunties for our boys in the National Guard!

The idea that illegal immigration has only a positive impact on society is complete bullsh*t. Take away all the entitlements and return this country to a constitutional republic, and we’ll see just how many illegals try to come here.

How many of you people commenting here actually live where illegals have a huge impact? I do. How many of you have taken your son to the emergency room with a concussion and had to sit there for four hours because large numbers of illegals flood the emergency rooms everyday for simple doctor related none emergencies. One of the emergency room nurses told me I was lucky I didn’t come after 5:00 p.m. because that’s when the free clinics around the area close down, and the emergency rooms really get flooded then. Of course, they do this becasue they know the hospital can’t turn them away, so they go there for everything. We wonder why it costs $50.00 for two Tylenol!

How about schools. Do any of you have to put your kids in schools that are overrun with illegals who only speak spanish? I do. And don’t give me any of this crap that their parents are paying for their education through their taxes, yeah right! This state spends over $10,000 per student. Not only do they not pay that, but if their kid/kids are born here then the state sends them about $10,000 per kid in welfare payments. How about the extra crime and gangs. I could go on and on.

There is a huge difference between our grandparents and great-grandparents who immigrated here and the illegal immigrants of today. First of all, they waited their turn in line and came here legally. Second, they had to make their own way. No other citizens were having there individual rights violated by being forced to subsidize new immigrants being here.

The fact is, we have immigration in this country, but you just have to wait your turn. Is that to much to ask. People just don’t like line cutters who break the law.

If we were truly a free society, and none of my property, including my hard earned money, were being taken away from me by force in order to subsidize others, then we probably wouldn’t even be discussing this issue right now. But until that day arrives, don’t expect those of us that cherish our liberty to be happy about a large, and increasingly demanding illegal group of people, placing an even larger claim on our individual rights and our individual property. Just give me all my money back and I’ll have no problem paying $3.00 for a head of lettuce instead of $1.00

You mean the way we legalized the illegal migration 20 years ago during the Reagan administration, and supposedly put into place new laws that were going to keep this problem from building up again from that point forward. Yeah, that worked great!

I think I made it pretty clear why I’m against amnesty, and any other concessions to allow those who broke our laws to be excused and rewarded for their illegal act. But, here’s another reason: How about the fact that it’s just plain wrong; laws were broken. Isn’t that enough reason right there?

Again, the large amount of illegal immigrants coming across our southern borders are taking vastly more from our ridiculous entitlement systems than they’re putting in, and it’s not any more right for the government to appease certain businesses with cheap labor, than it is to appease any other special interest group at the expense of our individual liberty; our individual rights!

Do away with all entitlements, give everyone thier inalienable rights to the fruits of their labor, and I have no problem with anyone, because the amount of people migrating here would be porportional to the amount that the economy could sustain, not the amount that a transfer of wealth from the middle-class to entitlement programs (and to those businesses that benefit from cheap labor) can sustain.

You mean the way we legalized the illegal migration 20 years ago during the Reagan administration, and supposedly put into place new laws that were going to keep this problem from building up again from that point forward. Yeah, that worked great!

You misunderstood me. I think the only problem is the edicts ( don’t consider them legitimate laws) which limit migration in the first place. I’m for legalization, not just amnesty.

I think I made it pretty clear why I’m against amnesty, and any other concessions to allow those who broke our laws to be excused and rewarded for their illegal act. But, here’s another reason: How about the fact that it’s just plain wrong; laws were broken. Isn’t that enough reason right there?

The “laws” you cite are what’s wrong. There’s nothing wrong with breaking an unjust “law” and saying “they broke the law” is not an argument against changing the “law” even if it was.

Again, the large amount of illegal immigrants coming across our southern borders are taking vastly more from our ridiculous entitlement systems than they’re putting in

Very false. even if this was true, it would in no way justify you taking away the rights of those who don’t.

appease any other special interest group at the expense of our individual liberty; our individual rights!

It’s the “laws” which you support which do exactly that.

Do away with all entitlements, give everyone thier inalienable rights to the fruits of their labor, and I have no problem with anyone, because the amount of people migrating here would be porportional to the amount that the economy could sustain, not the amount that a transfer of wealth from the middle-class to entitlement programs (and to those businesses that benefit from cheap labor) can sustain.

I’m also for doing away with entitlements, but it can’t be a legitimate precondition any more than, say, legalizing drugs has to happen BEFORE we can do away with gun control, or ending gun control has to take place BEFORE we do away with abusive police, or any one of thousands of other “only ifs”.

Paulie, I would love to live in the perfect world you’re talking about, but it just doesn’t exist. Most of the arguments you make are reasonable in the abstract (though I’m not sure I got the one about drugs and gun control, lol), but meaningless to the reality of the current situation. For example, the law which you claim to be unjust, could subjectively be applied to either side of the argument, and could only possibly be considered unjust to illegals, if we lived in a truly free society. However, we don’t live in a free society, nor does the rest of the world. Especially those countries south of the border that gladly dump there problems on us. Unfortunately, these laws have to exists based on the real conditions of our current society.

I’ve pointed out where illegals have caused considerable harm. Harm that certain parts of the country have to deal with on a daily basis. You can say “very false” all you want, but I know, because I live with it every day. Perhaps where you live it’s not as obvious. But, regardless of who’s right on this particular argument, the only way we will ever know what the true picture of immigration in this country should look like, is if we have that truly free society. A society where the subjective choices of individuals determined the amount of people needed to fulfill the economic demands. Until that day, though, I guess we could, at least, use your word “unjust”. The question we seem to be arguing about is- unjust to who?

Let’s keep working for true freedom. It’s obviously the answer to both our concerns.

I live everywhere, and have been to every part of the country except Hawaii.
I’ve also been to every state in Mexico, every country in Central America, every province in Canada, every major island (and every nation) in the Caribbean, and I’ve lived in Russia, Italy and the Bahamas.

Also, I’ve read a lot about the subject, I’m an immigrant myself, have seriously contemplated leaving the US permanently, I’ve lived in immigrant neighborhoods of different ethnicities and hired “illegal” immigrants in construction and furniture moving. And, yes, the “harm” you cite is far outweighed by the good.

How much exactly do you want to limit migration? How about from poorer neighborhoods to wealthier ones within cities and states? Poorer states to richer states?

Unjust to whom? To immigrants, certainly, but also to their American family, friends, employers or would-be employers, would-be employees,
consumers, and everyone else – including you, even if you don’t know it.

I am part of a loose association of people in the Lower Rio Grande Valley who oppose the building of this stupid wall. We organize and post related articles/resolutions/legislation on the yahoo groups site listed above.

We are beginning the first of our “wall protests” next weekend. Reuters and the San Antonio Express, as well as local media, will be there. I’m sending the press release below. We want to get as big a turnout as possible. Let all of us “last free voices” join and overthrow these weenies who have absconded with the government. Can you help us by getting the word out?

RALLY AGAINST THE BORDER WALL TO BE HELD IN ROMA, TEXAS
What: A community rally to oppose the building of a wall on the Texas/Mexico border
When: Saturday, July 14, 2007 at 10 a.m.
Where: Roma Bluffs overlooking the Rio Grande just in front of Roma City Hall, 77 Convent Street, Roma, Texas
Everyone is invited to the first in a series of Lower Rio Grande Valley community rallies to oppose the building of a wall on the Texas/Mexico border. The event is scheduled for Saturday morning, July 14, in Roma, Texas. Saturday’s rally will take place at 10 a.m. on the historic Roma Bluffs overlooking the Rio Grande. To get there, just follow the signs to Roma Bluffs and the World Birding Center.
Paddlers opposed to a wall that would limit access to the river for recreation are invited to bring their canoes or kayaks to the riverside in Fronton, Texas at 8 a.m. before the rally on Roma Bluffs. Fronton is a few miles west of Roma. This group will paddle as a flotilla to a take-out point below the international bridge between Roma and Ciudad Miguel Alemán and join in the 10 a.m. rally above. The paddle trip will take approximately two hours.
The rally will feature speakers, including a representative from the flotilla trip who will describe their experience on the river. From Roma Bluffs, rally attendees and paddlers will walk to the international bridge and form a hands-across-the-river line to Cd. Miguel Alemán to signify the close ties between border cities along the Rio Grande.
Organizer and river paddler, Betty Pérez, said, “We’re hoping to draw a large crowd on the Bluffs, and a large group of paddlers on the river to draw national attention to this issue. The beautiful view from Roma bluffs to the river and sister city, Miguel Alemán, and the site of a flotilla paddling down the river will hopefully do this. The idea of a wall between our countries is ludicrous, and it won’t work. Put that money into helping Roma, not making it less attractive to visit.”
More rallies are being scheduled in the following weeks in other cities along the river, including a rally in Brownsville, Texas on Saturday, August 25.

For more information and details about the Roma paddling trip and rally, contact Betty Pérez at 956-580-8915 or email her at bettygraceperez@gmail.com.